My cartoon and PREDICTION this morning “how to really get people to church”: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/nakedpastor/2013/09/how-to-really-get-people-to-church/
1 Corinthians 6:9 & 1 Timothy 1:10 both supposedly discuss homosexuality. In the New English Translation, 1 Corinthians 6:9 reads “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male…
Loving that exegesis.
Ahh, I love Matisyahu and the message of his music. I’m not religious anymore, but this is how you should go about your religion if you have one. Hoping for peace, no more wars or violence … I wish everyone could think this way.
Evolution does not mesh with the Bible, nor is it supported by scientific evidence. Being a serious Christian is not a negative thing (quite the contrary). Human life factually…
My God! I’m so glad I don’t think this way anymore. No, even as a Christian I was never this hateful. You ought to be glad my sister was so civil with you, because I’m about to tear your “logic” up with good old-fashioned Bible verses. (after all, the Bible is the infallible word of God, correct?) I will even do everyone a favor and include the correct historical and rhetorical context for each verse, as per my literature training.
But first, I would like to make my thesis on how you incorrectly form your arguments. The key to your arguments against evolution lies in your assumptions on faith. You incorrectly define what faith is, create a series of straw men based on what you think atheists/scientists are like, and then you destroy them with what looks like little effort, because you have put little thought into your constructions of how atheists use reason and scientific inquiry. Then, you blindly assault my sister’s intelligence based on your constructs rather than an objective view - a true understanding - of what she’s arguing. You’d be surprised at how idiotic you look to outsiders.
Now, let’s begin. Herein lies the cornerstone of your convictions:
Faith is not blind faith. Faith is believing in the evidence presented and trusting the gaps will be filled in eventually …
Not according to Hebrews 11. Through the many examples of great people of faith from the Hebrew Bible, its author describes faith as “the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen” (Heb. 11.1). In this description, evidence is not required; the believer looks only to God, even in the face of impossibility, and knows that God will deliver if the believer obeys his commands. For instance, Abraham “set out for a place that he was to receive as an inheritance; and he set out, not knowing where he was going” (Heb. 11.8). Was there evidence that there would be anything at the end for him? No. He just went, trusting God even in the face of no evidence, simply God’s promise.
Yes, the believer always fixes his or her eyes on God in what may not be considered a blind fashion to most believers, but God doesn’t have to explain what happens scientifically to them - he transcends scientific inquiry. To expect a logical answer and hard evidence is to be “of little faith.” Doubting Thomas, John 20:19-31. Thomas said that he would not believe that Jesus had arisen from the dead unless he had evidence, and that doesn’t seem unreasonable, right? When he gets his evidence and acknowledges Jesus as God, Jesus chastises him by saying “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe” (Jno. 20.29). The entire mystery of Jesus’s resurrection for many Christians lies in the idea that it is considered scientifically implausible to die in such a violent fashion and then rise, completely fine, three days later! (or perhaps you’ve found a way to scientifically prove that too, in which case I would love to hear it … this begins to beg the question of why Christians need creation science if they supposedly have faith).
If you’d like another example, consider Sarah and Elizabeth; both were considered far too old to bear children - Elizabeth’s husband Zechariah honestly didn’t even believe that it could happen, even doubted in the presence of an angel - and it was never explained how exactly these women got pregnant in a rational fashion. That would have contradicted the point, which was that they needed to have faith that God would deliver on his promise to give them children. Zechariah was even punished for his lack of faith by being rendered mute throughout the duration of Elizabeth’s pregnancy.
And there you have it. Because you have misconstrued the Biblical definition of faith, then your ideas of how evidence and science fit into the Bible will not work. Because you believe that God will supply you with some sort of rational logic after he performs a miracle, creates the world, or what have you, you are undoing the entire idea of faith: that it transcends the human need for proof. To have faith is to trust God without needing evidence of any sort, and without expecting gaps to be filled in after miracles. The Biblical answer to faith comes through obeying God - yes, even blindly, not knowing what specifically will happen or where exactly you’ll end up, but trusting that God knows better and is far more powerful than your small human mind could imagine.
I’m not a Christian anymore, but it is a wondrous idea just in itself. It parted seas, for Christ’s sake (I mean it). Please, don’t degrade God’s supernatural status with your little faith. Or perhaps you may fit in better with atheists and skeptics than you once believed?
P.S. - You should also look up what the Bible has to say about calling people “fools.”
P.P.S. - You aren’t going to look it up, lol. Let me help you. Matthew 5:22, “but I say to you, that everyone who’s angry with his brother will be liable to judgement; whoever insults his brother will be liable to the council; and whoever says, ‘you fool!’ will be liable to the hell of fire.”
P.P.P.S - A bit of advice from writer to writer - it’s a lot stronger to take the core of the argument that your opponent makes and to dismantle it throughly than to simply pick and choose a smattering of quotes from within their argument and destroy them individually with weak arguments.
P.P.P.P.S - Don’t worry; I’m not expecting a logical, intelligent reply from you.
My fiancé supports gender equality, and we both agree that feminism is the key to our stable and egalitarian relationship. Before feminism (and atheism, in some ways), I hated the way my body looked and felt like I had little to no control over where I would end up - I felt like I needed a relationship with a man to be validated. When I realized that wasn’t the case, he entered my life almost immediately.
(Source: smellslikegirlriot, via )
(Source: smellslikegirlriot, via )
-By Thomas McKown
First of all, I would like to point out that I never actually decided to become an atheist, it just happened. It happened as a result of forcing myself to look at reality for what it actually is instead of what I wanted it to be.
This is a question that surprisingly few Christians ask. Most are content to assume the answer; -“He’s angry at God for some reason… because something traumatic probably happened to him.” -“He’s just being selfish and arrogant. He wants to live his life on HIS terms without being accountable to anybody.” -“He’s simply naive; he has bought into the Devil’s lies. I pity him because he is just deceived.”
Of course, when assuming anything, you are most likely going to get something wrong. I must point out that it is very telling of a person’s logic system when they are basing their conclusions on assumptions rather than inquiry. Any time you are assuming a conclusion without basing it on evidence, you are most likely to have a flawed conclusion. This is something that I personally had to learn, as I used to do exactly the same thing. This, I found, was the difference between faith-based logic and evidence-based logic, as I will talk about below.
This is a wonderful read, and I identify strongly with parts of McKown’s journey. Perhaps it’s about time I write down my own?